Do you know what are the resources or contacts to access examples of existing templates for reporting embodied carbon to building standards or legislative bodies (like municipalities)?
I am aware of the templates used in CaGBC Zero Carbon Building Standard, BREEAM Mat 01 calculator, Norway’s FutureBuilt reporting template, Finland’s Ministry of Environment’s Whole Building LCA method, and London Plan 2020 Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment. Do you know any other ones?
I don’t know of additional templates but a single N. American model template would certainly be useful! As you know, Vancouver, BC has reporting standards but I don’t believe they have a reporting template.
I think many West Coast cities were close to embarking on WBLCA policies pre-COVID. Since much has been sidetracked, it may provide an opportunity to develop a consistent template/framework for WBLCA reporting. It would be great to have consistent reporting of impact categories, units, and material quantities to help contribute to future local and regional benchmarking efforts. We, at Oregon DEQ, are very interested in seeing a consistent WBLCA framework/reporting templates. It will be considerably easier to pass local/state policy if a framework/template is in place that has broad geographical reach.
Thanks for responding Jordan.
You are right, the City of Vancouver does not have a reporting template yet. Currently I am working with them to create clear submission requirements and an excel template. It would be great to hear the CLF’s community’s insight on what are the key component of an effective template.
Thanks for this important conversation Zahra!
I would suggest asking folks to report:
- the mass of each material (a simplified bill of materials for at least the top 10 materials), along with what sources were used to determine this BOM. would be useful to know if this was based on ‘preliminary design documents’ vs ‘as built / delivered quantity values’, for example.
- GWP results broken down by life cycle module A1-A3, A4, A5, etc.
- the possibility to separately present results for an ‘expanded material scope’ above and beyond what is minimally required by most systems (structure and envelope), so folks can also report the impact from other materials they might be considering like finishes, MEP or site works like paving a parking lot. These should be reported separately so they can be broken out from the ‘core scope’. The core scope needs to be separate so it can be used for comparisons to other projects and benchmarking.
Thank you for your input Ryan.
- Do you have any suggestion on how to make sure consistent and comparable naming is used for materials? Do you recommend any material naming convention that the City should adopt?
- Reporting additional scope on a voluntary basis sounds great for motivation new data generation.
The Athena Institute is working on a WBLCA guideline and benchmark initiative aiming to address some of the mentioned points: scope, categories, BOM reporting, etc. It includes standardizing naming convention which already has another thread on this forum. @matt.bowick may be able to share more? I think the short answer is that there are the CSI, UniFormat and OmniClass naming and categorization schemes, but none of them goes far enough for WBLCA purposes.